Policy risks flow from oil gluttony
The Gregorian 06/15/03 ROBERT LANDAUER
Energy controversies are about to gush across the foreign- and domestic-policy landscape like uncapped oil wells.
Directly affecting Oregon, Washington and other coastal states, the Senate on June 11 defeated an energy bill amendment that would have retained protections against invasive oil and natural gas explorations on the Outer Continental Shelf. If the action is not corrected, sensitive coastal environments, including marine sanctuaries, now excluded from preleasing and leasing activities would be added to the "inventory" area.
A five-year planning process already shows reserves at hand. So, the move to allow invasive surveys is a threatening precedent to allow drilling for actual exploration and extraction.
Many states whose economies depend heavily on fisheries, shipping and tourism don't want to bear risks of even one spill or accident. All senators from Oregon, Washington and California voted last week to keep protections that have been in place since 1982.
They lost this round, but their united stand offers hope. When a House appropriations subcommittee voted in 1995 to reinstate offshore oil leasing programs, Northwest senators and representatives of both parties rallied to reverse the threat to their region's coast. In that instance, they presented a convincing argument that even if every drop of oil off the coasts of Oregon and Washington was tapped, U.S. consumers would exhaust the resource in about eight days. Nothing has changed to make such a skimpy prize worth the risk of poisoning Northwest waters and shorelines with oil spills.
The 44 senators who voted to preserve coastal protections still can be a bipartisan coalition strong enough to win the fight. With more than 300 energy bill amendments yet to be acted on, they have time and maneuvering room in the Senate.
The fight could be carried to another ring. The House stripped a similar provision from its comprehensive energy legislation. So, a showdown could be orchestrated during conference if the Senate energy bill passes.
Also, a public outcry could be decisive. Loud opposition might make President Bush conclude, as his father did in 1990, that the political price of backing the oil industry is too costly.
A n energy bill vote last week showed how much senators hate to get on the wrong side of public opinion. President Bush and his allies have been preoccupied with energy production; conservation has been a low priority. So a bill requiring the president to produce a policy that would cut U.S. energy consumption 1 million barrels a day by 2013 was considered a dicey affair.
The vote: 99-1, a landslide win.
How come? When it was clear the issue would pass, senators stampeded to get on the side that wouldn't require public explanations, apologies or election campaign defenses.
A caution: This is modest progress. The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of petroleum products a day now and is expected to require 24 million barrels daily in 2013 -- even if we conserve an extra million barrels a day. And we'll likely rely on imports for about 63 percent of what we use, up from 55 percent now.
So, with 3 percent of global proven oil reserves, the United States is a petro-glutton. Its security and economic stability rely on energy from increasingly unstable regions like the Middle East (Arab oil accounted for 28 percent of U.S. petro-imports in 2002), Venezuela and Nigeria.
All of which adds to heated worry around the world whether the Bush team really means to reconstitute Iraq's oil industry (11 percent of proven global reserves, second to Saudi Arabia) as an independent player or remake it as a pawn of U.S. companies.
The survival of foreign governments and the shape of pro- and anti-U.S. alliances surely depend on the answer. Power applied recklessly would rebound dangerously and destructively. Reach Robert Landauer, editorial columnist, at 503-221-8157, or 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 or robertlandauer@news.oregonian.com